16 indicates that Mr. Neptune participated as an accomplice in specific and serious crimes; [… however,] dates, times and other particulars for each of these crimes are not specified, nor are the identities of the individuals who are alleged to have directly perpetrated these crimes; [… and it] does not indicate with sufficient clarity the facts or circumstances that allegedly link Mr. Neptune to these specific incidents so as to lead to his individual criminal responsibility.”62 The Commission also contended that “[t]he mental and physical elements necessary to establish Mr. Neptune’s criminal responsibility based upon a complicity theory remain entirely unclear.”63 47. The Commission also alleged that the closing order should have decided that Mr. Neptune be submitted to a trial by jury, because, according to Article 50 of the 1987 Haitian Constitution, “crimes of blood” (délits de sang) must be heard by a judge and a jury and the alleged crimes of murder of which he was accused are included in this category. In the Commission’s opinion, a court without a jury did not represent a “competent tribunal, previously established by Haitian law, as stipulated in Article 8(1) of the Convention.”64 48. The representative alleged belatedly that the State’s refusal to refer Mr. Neptune’s case to a natural judge for eleven months, the failure to respect the legal time frames and procedures during the investigation of the case, and the eleven months taken to issue a decision concerning the appeal, violated Mr. Neptune’s right to a fair trial.65 49. The Court notes that the Commission lodged the application in this case when the criminal proceedings filed against Mr. Neptune were still open. In particular, even though the Commission was aware of the fact that supervened the filing of the application (supra paras. 4, 14 and 20), it maintained its position regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Taking into consideration what was said in the chapters on the Introduction of the Case and the Proceedings before the Court concerning this supervening fact, the Court will now examine the facts of this case in light of the State’s obligations under the Convention, as contained in the said provisions. 50. Before examining the specific facts of the case, it is worth recalling that they occurred in a context of political change and institutional crisis. In this regard, the United Nations Independent Expert on Haiti indicated in his report for this period that: In addition to the institutional crisis (a virtual parliament, an “interim Transitional” government handicapped by the destruction or ransacking of many public institutions), there is a worsening crisis in the administration of justice (16 courts have been damaged, many police stations and prisons are devastated, the vast majority of inmates have been “released”, i.e. have escaped, and threats are constantly made against judges, victims and witnesses), all this in a climate of insecurity, despite MINUSTAH’s efforts to support, in operations to maintain law and order, a police force that all too often is “in competition” with groups of former soldiers who are trying to create a de facto justification for their return.66 62 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 112 (folios 128 and 129). 63 Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, para. 113 (folio 129). 64 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the Commission, supra note 22, para. 54 (folio 312). 65 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the representative, September 30, 2007, para. 79 (merits file, volume II, folio 286). 66 United Nations, Economic and Social Council. Report on the situation of human rights in Haiti presented by the independent expert, Louis Joinet, E/CN.4/2005/123, 24 January 2005, summary.